 |
| Newt and Calista Gingrich |
It’s one thing to preach morality and then fail to live up to your own lofty ideal; it’s human and we’re all guilty of it now and then. It’s another to build a career destroying others, moralizing day in and day out, and to lead a life that doesn’t come close to the ideal that you impose on others. That’s called being a hypocrite. Leaders, even good leaders, can be lots of things—ambitious, narcissistic, and perhaps even philandering (such as John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Hart
Link (here) to read the full blog post entitled, Newt Gingrich, Hypocrite by Micheal O'Loughlin at the Jesuit published America's In All Things The unoriginal idea for the O'Loughlin piece can found (here)
24 comments:
At the present time, saying that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite is false but had you made that statement during the 1990's I would have agreed with your statement. Back then, Newt was not a Catholic, was acting immorally and was a hypocrite but since then Newt has had a conversion, has converted to Catholicism and changed his ways, in a moral sense. I do believe that today Newt could serve honorably as a politician. But, years ago in some respects he didn't serve honorably and before his conversion took place he couldn't have served honorably either.
I think the problem is that Newt was preaching to other people about personal morality--those other politicians with flawed marriages weren't doing that.
I just happen to disagree w/NG's political philosophy and his views on most everything so I would never vote for him.
anyone cursed with the name "newt" is going to have problems
I'm not certain that it was "vicious" but I agree that it didn't really belong in AMERICA--it was just a political blog with very little connection to issues of faith. I can get that kind of opinion elsewhere.
I actually think that the topic is potentially good - and that Mr. Gengrich could be a good example. But the blog seems to lose focus quickly. It ends up being just another political observation. Where is the teaching?
Teresa: So, what you're saying is, he was a hypocrite then, but not now, because he is a Catholic. And that makes him behave differently ... how?
David: Do you have evidence that Newt is presently acting immorally or has acted immorally or sinned in the same manner as before he entered the Catholic Church?
Except for saying again & again he's a grandpa now (=little libido?) he hasn't really discussed his serial marriages. Too bad he wagged his finger at other politicians all these years.
Now judging Newt on other issues and whether he has flip-flopped his positions recently is a different matter. Newt is not my first choice. I am backing Rick Santorum for President. I can understand one's reticence to support Newt because of the issue of his past honesty and character but that is different from claiming he is still a hypocrite.
Here is a pretty good article I found http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2012/01/21/are-we-electing-a-pastor-in-chief/
Agree with Teresa. You cannot see Newt as a simultaneous person composed of all his life periods permanently. He may still be a hypocrit but we don't know that...only God does. Aquinas said we are to take slight doubts for the best even if our hopeful vision of a person proves wrong at the Judgement. Anyway....after his moon project comments at the Florida debate, he becomes just too much information for most people to process. If a president is thinking about the moon with 11 million people unemployed, he's escaping reality....much like our Pope promoting a New Evangelisation while our already baptized Catholic countries...Columbia, Peru, Bolivia...lead the world in cocaine trafficking/ two Catholic nations in Central America lead wiki's list of highest murder rates/ and two Catholic nations....Phillipines and Brazil are 4th and 2nd for
child prostitution. Consolidation is needed not new evangelisation with that record.
If you want to wipe Newt's slate clean because Catholicism is his new (and third--kind of like the number of wives he has had), then fine.
But he has not stopped wagging his finger at others so I see no evidence that he is a new man.
Anonymous
You need two things for hypocrisy: wagging finger plus bad morals now not then. Christ, John the Baptist and Paul wagged their finger at others....that's only half of hypocrisy. You need present bad behaviour in the finger wagger. I'm sure you wag your finger....you're doing it toward Newt. That does not make you a hypocrit.
Newt has not provided any proof that he is no longer a hypocrite.
Actually, I don't think a politician's personal life should matter--but Newt does, and he has tried to score political points all while engaging in extramarital affairs.
"Newt has not provided any proof that he is no longer a hypocrite."
What type of proof are you looking for? How does one prove that they aren't doing something? You are assuming that he has continued to be a hypocrite. How charitable of you.
Anonymous
Teresa is correct again. No one can prove to you that they are not committing adultery. They can only prove that to God. Do you confuse your role with His?
"Proud people are always, memorize the adverb, harsh."
--John Hardon SJ
Bill--I don't care if Newt is committing adultery: but he did, many times, and was exceedingly cruel to his many ex-wives. He is now on his third church. He appears to be an unstable man.
The thing that I question is his hypocracy. He preaches "family values" but doesn't seem to practice his version of it. You can choose to excuse or dismiss this. That's fine, but Old Newton hasn't spoken at length about this hypocracy. On what grounds do you decide the character of a person? You seem to have no standard(s). Teresa's first post states that she thinks Gingrich is a Catholic (for) now and that is proof that he is a changed man. That seems really naive.
Anonymous,
To make the step to convert to a religion that restricts one's life under pain of mortal sin just for Mass attendance each Sunday is a good sign in itself. But you are continuing to speak about his past as though it is his present. Had the Church applied that to Augustine, we would have no Augustine. Augustine lived in fornication for ten years....then stopped and Monica found him a respectable girl to marry who however was as yet too young to marry....Augustine said he couldn't wait sexually and so he took another mistress. The first mistress who he dumped and who bore him a son said that she would never love
another man. I think the first mistress was more stable than Augustine. And yet our two best minds as writers were Augustine and Aquinas.
After Augustine converts, he never again touches a woman. He went from unstable to stable.
man.
I hope Newt has changed but I need evidence. He still attacks other people's morals but hasn't reflected on his own.
Anonymous,
Then you might be doing this same guilty until proven innocent thing.... with your own circle of relatives and friends....and with yourself. In the end Judas judged himself as worthless....even after he threw back the 30 pieces of silver which was a good action generated by God's grace as God kept chasing him and loving him as far as He could without invading Judas' freedom.
Are you disputing that Newton is on his third marriage, that he cheated on the first two, that he announced he was breaking up with them when they were ill, etc.? or that he plays "morality cop"?
Of course Mr. Speaker can find grace--we all can, but he can't get it on the cheap.
If you, LORD, keep account of sins,
Lord, who can stand?
Psalm 130:3
I thank God every day for his Mercy. "My sin is always before me". He has a different kind of ledger than the one we keep. Deo gratias.
Beautiful words Maria--pls. keep them handy for everyone not just political allies.
I do. BTW, Newt is not my political allie :) He came for all of us...
Post a Comment